California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Bokkes v. Plotkin, G052085 (Cal. App. 2016):
17. We do not here deal with the question of whether these Business and Professions Code statutes create a private cause of action. (See Johnson v. Honeywell Internat. Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 549, 555-556.)
18. Appellants further argue that the trial court erroneously excluded an exhibit indicating that Pablo and Plotkin were operating as a joint venture. Their brief does not give sufficient information to review this argument. The only citation is to the exhibit itself, a fictitious business statement filed on April 25, 2014, long after the events recounted in the complaint. We are not directed to the portion of the reporter's transcript where the court excluded this exhibit, if it did. In the absence of a proper record, we disregard the purported facts and assume the court ruled correctly. (Thornbrough v. Western Placer Unified School Dist. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 169, 175, fn. 3; Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 447.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.